Posted
by
BeauHDon Thursday October 20, 2016 @08:50PM
from the there's-a-new-sheriff-in-town dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: Target is the top corporate installer of solar power in the USA with 147MW installed on 300 stores. Walmart is close behind with 140MW, while Ikea has installed solar on 90% of its retail locations. The Solar Energy Institute of America (SEIA) report shows over 1,000MW of solar installed in almost 2,000 unique installations by the largest corporate entities in the country. Additionally these groups have more than doubled their installation volume year on year, with 2015 seeing a total of 130MW, while 2016 is projected to be closer to 280MW. Big box retail locations offer some of the best potential spaces for solar power to be installed -- on top of square, flat structures and in previously built parking lots. The average size of an installation by a company in this group is about 500kW -- 75X the size of an average residential solar installation. The RE100 organization has signed up 81 global corporations (many on the SEIA list) who have pledged 100% renewable energy. "We're incredibly proud of the progress we've made in improving building efficiencies and reducing environmental impact. Our commitment to installing solar panels on 500 stores and distribution centers by 2020 is evidence of that progress" -- said John Leisen, vice president of property management at Target. The geographic breakdown of solar installations is based upon three main drivers -- good sunlight, expensive electricity and state level renewable mandates, with Southern California having all three. The northeast USA, with its expensive electricity and aggressive clean energy push, has been on par with California (50% of total solar) for commercial installations. A report put together by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) breaks down the various state level laws that support corporations going green -- and, without surprise, it becomes clear that the legal support of renewable energy is a definite driver.

Rooftop solar is good energy policy: domestic, local, distributed. Add in on-site storage, and you have a real winner, as the maximum solar penetration can safely go from 15% to 45% of peak load(/circuit capacity). For bonus points, add in pollution, and fuel cells even start to make good sense at a reasonable penetration. I am working on a couple new buildings now with a combined PV system of about 1MW... for pretty small buildings in the scheme of things.

Rooftop solar is good energy policy: domestic, local, distributed. Add in on-site storage, and you have a real winner, as the maximum solar penetration can safely go from 15% to 45% of peak load(/circuit capacity). For bonus points, add in pollution, and fuel cells even start to make good sense at a reasonable penetration. I am working on a couple new buildings now with a combined PV system of about 1MW... for pretty small buildings in the scheme of things.

The myth that solar only works in southern states was debunked years ago. There's plenty of sun in northern climates to make solar very efficient. The country with the most installed solar capacity in the world, Germany (~32,000 MW), has a nearly identical climate to most northern US states (e.g. four full seasons, clouds, rain, snow, mountains, valleys, forests, etc.).

Solar is also not an option for those of us who live in neighborhoods with a lot of trees, like mine. My rooftop gets very little direct sunlight because of the trees. I would need a huge price discount to make the cost of solar have a positive ROI.

I'm a red blooded conservative and I endorse this message. You want to stop playing world cop? This is how you do it, eliminate foreign oil interests. I bet every dollar spent on solar is 10 not spent on bombs

And the support of the US Miltary is the protector of Middle East oil. What is your point? It is called leveling the playing field.

Solar power is used to generate electricity. Oil is used as a transportation fuel. Those are two different markets. You should compare solar subsidies to tax breaks for gas fracking instead. That would make more sense.

I love how Target makes a mother who is breast feeding leave the safety of a change room to go into the creeper rape bathrooms. Because after all, anyone who declares themselves to be a female at this moment should be able to leer at women in their most private of moments.

Man, you picked a bad example, since Target policy is well-established that they do support breastfeeding in their stores, including the fitting rooms, meaning that it was an individual employee who made actions that were not the company's, and this woman in question said she would feed her daughter in public anyway without covering up.

Target has already had a 19% decline in stock price this year alone. They are definitely not in a profitable mode. If i was a stock holder i'd be questioning why they are spending all this money to install solar panels and not trying to improve there profit by selling their retail goods. Sounds like the TGT board needs to be more focused on their core business.

It is nice to see a publicly traded corporation actually doing LONG TERM PLANNING. This will save Target money long term and provide good PR in the short term. I would think most retail stores use less power than their roof collects... I wonder how they deal with all that extra power when many places have a whole different set of grid-tie regulations when your output exceeds just a few MW. In my area you dare not exceed 3 MW because then you must become a power company.

Target has already had a 19% decline in stock price this year alone. They are definitely not in a profitable mode. If i was a stock holder i'd be questioning why they are spending all this money to install solar panels and not trying to improve there profit by selling their retail goods. Sounds like the TGT board needs to be more focused on their core business.

Musta been those solar panels, eh? Everyone knows that the sun doesn't shine after dark.

Target has already had a 19% decline in stock price this year alone... If i was a stock holder i'd be questioning why they are spending all this money to install solar panels and not trying to improve there profit by selling their retail goods.

Target and Walmart and other companies of their size are looking for the long-term benefits of solar. Solar pays for itself after several years, and it gives predictable energy costs that won't fluctuate with federal, state, or global politics for long-term planning. If you're a stock holder in a company that is only planning for their next quarterly or yearly profit update, it's time to sell.

The data you link to shows that large scale hydro energy output has declined sharply since 2010, presumably due to the drought, while wind and solar output have increased by about the same amount, making up the difference and leaving thermal output flat over the period, since overall demand was flat. If the drought is temporary, this will correct itself; if the drought is due to long term climate change, continued growth in wind and solar will soon start to reduce thermal generation needs. Either way, it's

No one (sane) questions whether solar works or not. It's a pretty straightforward technology, and it's intuitively ideal for reducing demand during peak hours, typically the middle of the work day. There are, however, questions about whether the economics make sense without government subsidies, which is where we'd like to eventually end up, I think.

For businesses, obviously an economic incentive is the most straightforward driver, and if it's good for the environment too, that's a happy bonus. I'm hopef

I'm inclined to agree, but I get a lot of the "it won't work" responses on Slashdot.

It's a pretty straightforward technology, and it's intuitively ideal for reducing demand during peak hours, typically the middle of the work day. There are, however, questions about whether the economics make sense without government subsidies, which is where we'd like to eventually end up, I think.

Certainly. But since technology desn't stay in one place, That situation willt change. The economies of scale can make some pretty complex and involved processes very inexpensive. I was shocked to see that a lot of solar installations are even going in place in Alaska. Now while it's true that the really long nights of winter render the cells pretty useless, they allow them to save a lot of money on diesel fuel, and can stoc

While deniers continue to say that solar simply doesn't work, stores doing this seem to still be making profit.

Stock prices are lower now - have a peek. The company also receives large gov't tax breaks for it. Solar WORKS, there's no questioning that. It's larger-scale thought that comes to play when determining success or failure.

Panels gather heat during the day and emit infrared at night as a result. If you had an area (let's say a city) with 20% of the homes and 80% of the businesses with rooftops completely covered in solar panels, you're going to have a very bad climate situation if the day is sunny and cl

Walmart has been using direct solar for lighting for 10+ years now - something I haven't seen Target do anywhere. In a newer Walmart the fluorescent lights only come on as needed to keep the light at a certain level. Noon with bright sunlight will have no electrical lighting on in a store.

This. Commercial PV panels are about 18% efficient at converting solar energy into electricity, and the best fluorescent bulbs are about 15% efficient at converting electricity into light (the rest becomes heat). So if you install PV panels to power your lights, you're only converting about 2.7% of the sunlight hitting your solar panels into interior light.

In other words, covering your roof entirely with PV panels gets you as much solar lighting as cutting holes in 2.7% of your roof. The little square

This. Commercial PV panels are about 18% efficient at converting solar energy into electricity, and the best fluorescent bulbs are about 15% efficient at converting electricity into light (the rest becomes heat). So if you install PV panels to power your lights, you're only converting about 2.7% of the sunlight hitting your solar panels into interior light.

Fluorescent lights are around 80% efficient (similar to LEDs). Incandescent lights (traditional light bulbs) are around 15% efficient. It's why you can

This. Commercial PV panels are about 18% efficient at converting solar energy into electricity, and the best fluorescent bulbs are about 15% efficient at converting electricity into light (the rest becomes heat). So if you install PV panels to power your lights, you're only converting about 2.7% of the sunlight hitting your solar panels into interior light.

Fluorescent lights are around 80% efficient (similar to LEDs). Incandescent lights (traditional light bulbs) are around 15% efficient. It's why you can replace a 60W light bulb with a 13W CFL.

Uh, no. An incandescent bulb is 3-4% efficient, 5% efficient at best (that is 5% of the energy is emitted as visible light, 95% is emitted as heat). Fluorescent bulbs and LEDs are far more efficient, but nowhere near even 50%. Fluorescent bulbs are around 4x as efficient, LEDs around 6x.

Using direct lighting instead of PV + electric light is a huge win, and leaves the rest of the roof open for PV installation if you want.

To give an idea of how much lighting is used, I counted the lights in a Hobby Lobby

Sorry for posting anon, but having difficulties logging in right now. Also, full disclosure, I'm a property technician for Target.

There's also a big difference in how Target and Walmart design their stores. There are a few stores Target has that uses direct lighting in, one in the greater metro Detroit area. For the most part though it isn't as feasible with how they have their drop ceilings set up. Walmart uses a more industrial design with a high, exposed girder system and full runs of florescents across

Sorry for posting anon, but having difficulties logging in right now. Also, full disclosure, I'm a property technician for Target.

There's also a big difference in how Target and Walmart design their stores. There are a few stores Target has that uses direct lighting in, one in the greater metro Detroit area. For the most part though it isn't as feasible with how they have their drop ceilings set up. Walmart uses a more industrial design with a high, exposed girder system and full runs of florescents across the entire building. Target on the other hand uses a drop ceiling with an average height of 14ft and a floor with a high gloss finish to maximize the uses of it's grid pattern lighting solutions. Any type of direct lighting would be difficult to add into the brand image Target has for it's stores.

Thanks for the info, I've noticed the difference in style but didn't give it much thought. Still, it would be nice for them to figure out a way to get the best of both worlds.